Shouldn't mandatory education be abolished?

[dardarla]

I see a lot of talk about different ways to segregate the school system, streaming kids off into "college" or "trade" streams early on.

What I don't like about this idea is that it closes doors to opportunity. Say you have an underacheiver who would be ready to try and push themselves to go to college after high school... or a really smart kid, who was presured by his parents to go to school/college and did well wants to change careers into the the trades, but he has a different base of education so its hard.

Whats good about our current system is that it gives everyone the same base of knowledge (maybe this is what needs adapting) so that they can build on into whatever they want. Cause really, who wants their future decided at 10 years old, or even 20... we need to spend some time figuring out who we are and who we want to be first, not have our future decided early on. Some of us have a good idea early on what we want to do/be so we can work towards that as welll with our options classes etc (I think we should have more of these so we can try out different types of jobs in school)

Basically, giving everyone the same base education leaves doors open for whatever we want to do. As soon as we start segregating we close doors to people... because really, not everyone knows what they want to do with the rest of their life at 16, 18 or even older... it shouldn't be dictated... also parents would push for their kids to be in the stream they want, etc.

There is no perfect solution :/

 

[Tristicus]

Honestly I can't even believe anyone would suggest anything this fvcking stupid. I have read many threads over the years, thousands, like many here have and I can't remember a more stupid thread.

Search through your thread history.

 

[marsbound2024]

No

 

[Anarchist420]

Well, if it can't be abolished, then some serious reforms need to be made. Something like a test before Kindergarten to see what track you belong in would be good. They need to make sure the kids who have problems don't affect the ones who don't, and simply have more vocational options (so that people who aren't interested in learning everything can just learn what they need to get a decent job), plus cut out all of the unnecessary shit like atheletics. That stuff can be done privately and it causes huge problems.

One of the best things they can do is separate the kids based upon ability and fail the people who need to be failed.

 

[Brainonska511]

Well, if it can't be abolished, then some serious reforms need to be made. Something like a test before Kindergarten to see what track you belong in would be good. They need to make sure the kids who have problems don't affect the ones who don't, and simply have more vocational options (so that people who aren't interested in learning everything can just learn what they need to get a decent job), plus cut out all of the unnecessary shit like atheletics. That stuff can be done privately and it causes huge problems.

One of the best things they can do is separate the kids based upon ability and fail the people who need to be failed.

That is also stupid. Someone's abilities pre-kindergarten have almost no bearing on whether they will be able to do x or y better.

And with the obesity rate in the US being at least 1/3 of the population, athletics are a necessity. If only to give small children time to burn off energy during the day so they can sit quietly and learn during the day.

Your obsession with privatization is inane and insane. You should pick up a book that doesn't outright agree with your own preconceived notions; it might smack some sense into you.

 

[dmcowen674]

It should not be abolished, but your ability to post should.

This :thumbsup:

 

[William Gaatjes]

I see a lot of talk about different ways to segregate the school system, streaming kids off into "college" or "trade" streams early on.

What I don't like about this idea is that it closes doors to opportunity. Say you have an underacheiver who would be ready to try and push themselves to go to college after high school... or a really smart kid, who was presured by his parents to go to school/college and did well wants to change careers into the the trades, but he has a different base of education so its hard.

Whats good about our current system is that it gives everyone the same base of knowledge (maybe this is what needs adapting) so that they can build on into whatever they want. Cause really, who wants their future decided at 10 years old, or even 20... we need to spend some time figuring out who we are and who we want to be first, not have our future decided early on. Some of us have a good idea early on what we want to do/be so we can work towards that as welll with our options classes etc (I think we should have more of these so we can try out different types of jobs in school)

Basically, giving everyone the same base education leaves doors open for whatever we want to do. As soon as we start segregating we close doors to people... because really, not everyone knows what they want to do with the rest of their life at 16, 18 or even older... it shouldn't be dictated... also parents would push for their kids to be in the stream they want, etc.

There is no perfect solution :/

I agree.
There must always be freedom in choice of profession. Now and in the future.
I think the way the education system currently works is the reason that there are a lot of drop outs. The system is created upon the idea of the common denominator. And this is a good system. But it needs to be augmented that the children who have more difficulty learning are getting the help they needed. With big classes this is not going to happen. I still think small classes and 2 teachers a class would greatly increase the amount of children that are doing good on school. And if there is one thing i noticed, is that the classes get bigger, meaning more children, less teachers. And as such less time for each student. Now the whole thing is that what happens in these classes is the road to the future. Thus again, a good education system is a long term investment with great returns. But the last 2 to 3 decades at least in the country where i live, there has been cut backs and decline in budgets.I have seen an increase of stressed out teachers. One of the reasons is that immigrant male children who under the influence of hormones physically bother and sometimes even assault female native teachers. Another is the increased amount of work for the teachers. More students and less time to prepare lessons. Not being able to go deep into the matter and give real life examples. Decrease in pay for the teachers. Less holidays for the teachers. Worse pension plans for the teachers. Not being able to put more time and energy in students can be just as frustrating because these teachers know very well what will happen without proper guidance. I can go on and on. But it is not that strange that all this affects the quality of education. Now i have not even started about how the students have changed. From eager to learn to bored and angry on everything for no reason...

 

[classy]

Search through your thread history.

Maybe you should, I don't start many threads there loser.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If you think either party's leadership wants an intelligent general population, you are deluded.

You're talking to Jhhnn, a member of the "Democrat good, Republican bad" club. These hacks on both sides are too blind to see that both parties suck and are laughing at their constituents behind closed doors.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yeh, but they'll be easier to manipulate by the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and so forth...

If you think that Rightwing leadership wants the general population to possess critical thinking skills, well, think again...

Yeah, but they'll be easier to manipulate by the likes of Olbermann, Moore, Maddow, and so forth...

If you think that left-wing leadership wants the general population to possess critical thinking skills, well, think again...

 

[ShawnD1]

The system is created upon the idea of the common denominator. And this is a good system. But it needs to be augmented that the children who have more difficulty learning are getting the help they needed. With big classes this is not going to happen. I still think small classes and 2 teachers a class would greatly increase the amount of children that are doing good on school. And if there is one thing i noticed, is that the classes get bigger, meaning more children, less teachers. And as such less time for each student.

The whole point of separating children based on their intelligence and skill set is so they don't need individual help. My grade 12 math class had a total of 60 students, and people rarely needed individual help because the material was appropriate for our level of understanding. When the teacher says "factorial", not a single student in the class should need to ask what that means. When he says something about reaching an "asymptote", everyone should know what he's talking about. When he says something about "local maximum" and kids start scratching their heads, it's not 1 or 2 people but more like 30 or 40 people who don't know what the heck that means. 1 student will ask what it means, and the teacher will explain it to the entire class.

God help these modern kids if they ever make it to university. People who rely on being individually coached by the teacher will be in a world of pain when they find themselves in a class with 100 other students and a teacher who doesn't know any of their names.

But the last 2 to 3 decades at least in the country where i live, there has been cut backs and decline in budgets

Wat? The US has the most expensive schools in the entire world. numbers. In Detroit, schools spend as much as $11,000 per student per year but the graduation rate is less than 50%.

Less holidays for the teachers.

School is out for ~3 months of every year if you include Christmas vacation. My former school mate who is now an elementary teacher says she gets about 5 weeks vacation in summer. I don't think there's a problem of having not enough holidays. Not enough money is a real concern but don't tell me they need more holidays when they already get more holidays than every other profession.



I know the OP is trolling, but anyone who agrees with cutting all education is a retard. I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and part of our lessons were about the history of Christianity. Back when most people were completely illiterate, the church could get away with unbelievable bullshit just because nobody could read what things like laws or the bible actually said. Priests were an elite class of people who could read and write when most people couldn't do either. The priest has this holy book of laws dictated by god himself, but only the priest can actually read this book. That puts this elite person in a unique position where they can basically make up their own rules. Nobody can dispute what the bible says because nobody knows how to read. This gives way too much power to the people who know how to read.

edit: replace bible with law books and it still holds true. If you can't read what the laws are, how are you supposed to know them? Even when I know how to read English, I have trouble understanding electrical laws. Notwithstanding rule 1b of section 19, receptacles must be grounded unless a variance is granted in accordance with appendix A5.

 

[Elias824]

Some interesting ideas here, but the idea of school segregitation between college bound and trade students is kind of a bad idea. Id hate to see some kid do bad on a test or two and get stuffed in someplace he didnt really want to be. Also parents (part of the problem with education) would be a huge issue in this, they wouldn't just stand by and let there kid be stuck someplace, If it was by choice it is less of an issue.

I think what everyone is getting at is that schools need to provide more functional knowledge and basically stop being the glorified day care like they are now. With the current system there are alot of classes that are supposed to provide these skills, but fail badly at it.

 

[ShawnD1]

Some interesting ideas here, but the idea of school segregitation between college bound and trade students is kind of a bad idea. Id hate to see some kid do bad on a test or two and get stuffed in someplace he didnt really want to be

Canada's schools operate like this and it seems to work fine. In the province of Alberta, all classes are common from grades 1-9. In grade 10, they branch out to various levels of difficulty. Difficult math that leads to university would be called Math 10. Slightly easier math that can often be used when applying to trade schools would be called Math 13. Below that is the bare minimum required to graduate, and this would be Math 14. In the next grades, the first number changes and the second number is the same. If you took Math 10, then in grade 11 you would take Math 20, then in grade 12 you take Math 30. The easier math for trade school would go Math 13 --> Math 23 --> Math 33.

If you get stuck in the lower levels, you're fucked. If you graduated with the easier Math 33 and later decide that you want to go to university, you would need to take Math 10, 20, and 30.

The pre-university classes include all of the things covered in the pre-trades classes, so people who could go to university if they wanted are still able to apply to trade schools without any problems. Basically you want to shoot for as high as you can go. If you graduate with all of the pre-university classes, you can go anywhere, including trade school. If you only have the watered down trade classes, you can go only go to trade school. If you just have the bare minimum to graduate, you'll fall below the requirements for most trade programs.

Overall it's a nice system because it means your classes are not filled with retards and criminals. You're sitting in a class filled with people who are just as smart as you.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The whole point of separating children based on their intelligence and skill set is so they don't need individual help. My grade 12 math class had a total of 60 students, and people rarely needed individual help because the material was appropriate for our level of understanding. When the teacher says "factorial", not a single student in the class should need to ask what that means. When he says something about reaching an "asymptote", everyone should know what he's talking about. When he says something about "local maximum" and kids start scratching their heads, it's not 1 or 2 people but more like 30 or 40 people who don't know what the heck that means. 1 student will ask what it means, and the teacher will explain it to the entire class.

God help these modern kids if they ever make it to university. People who rely on being individually coached by the teacher will be in a world of pain when they find themselves in a class with 100 other students and a teacher who doesn't know any of their names.

Some have a natural tendency to not see abstract ways of thinking.
Give them a practical explanation and they number crunch faster out of head then any abstract thinker can with a calculator. I do not think it is a problem to change the educational system a bit. I think smaller classes with 2 teachers is a good thing. More order, more ease. I once thought up of an idea to use a teacher about the current subject and a psychologist at the same time to study the students and make a database how they respond and what their weak spots are. A small tuning of the homework for these children would then greatly improve their chances. I am not advocating that everybody should have an private teacher.

Wat? The US has the most expensive schools in the entire world. numbers. In Detroit, schools spend as much as $11,000 per student per year but the graduation rate is less than 50%.

Then you should ask yourself why this is.
Because in the country where i live, those kinds of numbers do not exist. i think 850 dollar per student is more accurate and maybe still very positively numbered. Yet the students do their best and i think it is in general 80 to 90 percent that get their degree's. And i live in the western part of the EU where life is in general very good and has lot of luxuory. These schools may not be private schools but still. I think there is something else going on in those schools you mentioned.

School is out for ~3 months of every year if you include Christmas vacation. My former school mate who is now an elementary teacher says she gets about 5 weeks vacation in summer. I don't think there's a problem of having not enough holidays. Not enough money is a real concern but don't tell me they need more holidays when they already get more holidays than every other profession.

In other professions you do not have to deal on a daily basis with 300 + children where a large part is influenced by raging hormones. I think it is very good to give the teachers some slack. It is our future these teachers have under their wings we are talking about here. It is not a bad thing to make the teaching job a desirable job once again. Enthusiasm under teachers is a good thing. Stress is definitely not. The kids are affected in the end. But then again, the main part of what i know is what i see in the country i live in. What i know from the US educational system is through documentaries and articles.

I know the OP is trolling, but anyone who agrees with cutting all education is a retard. I went to Catholic schools for 12 years and part of our lessons were about the history of Christianity. Back when most people were completely illiterate, the church could get away with unbelievable bullshit just because nobody could read what things like laws or the bible actually said. Priests were an elite class of people who could read and write when most people couldn't do either. The priest has this holy book of laws dictated by god himself, but only the priest can actually read this book. That puts this elite person in a unique position where they can basically make up their own rules. Nobody can dispute what the bible says because nobody knows how to read. This gives way too much power to the people who know how to read.

edit: replace bible with law books and it still holds true. If you can't read what the laws are, how are you supposed to know them? Even when I know how to read English, I have trouble understanding electrical laws. Notwithstanding rule 1b of section 19, receptacles must be grounded unless a variance is granted in accordance with appendix A5.

I fully agree on what you write here.

 

[Elias824]

Canada's schools operate like this and it seems to work fine. In the province of Alberta, all classes are common from grades 1-9. In grade 10, they branch out to various levels of difficulty. Difficult math that leads to university would be called Math 10. Slightly easier math that can often be used when applying to trade schools would be called Math 13. Below that is the bare minimum required to graduate, and this would be Math 14. In the next grades, the first number changes and the second number is the same. If you took Math 10, then in grade 11 you would take Math 20, then in grade 12 you take Math 30. The easier math for trade school would go Math 13 --> Math 23 --> Math 33.

If you get stuck in the lower levels, you're fucked. If you graduated with the easier Math 33 and later decide that you want to go to university, you would need to take Math 10, 20, and 30.

The pre-university classes include all of the things covered in the pre-trades classes, so people who could go to university if they wanted are still able to apply to trade schools without any problems. Basically you want to shoot for as high as you can go. If you graduate with all of the pre-university classes, you can go anywhere, including trade school. If you only have the watered down trade classes, you can go only go to trade school. If you just have the bare minimum to graduate, you'll fall below the requirements for most trade programs.

Overall it's a nice system because it means your classes are not filled with retards and criminals. You're sitting in a class filled with people who are just as smart as you.

I dont have a problem with offering a variety of classes and not forcing everyone to learn the same thing. Alot of people seems like talking about the kids who dont do well in school getting dropped or forced into other trade classes. Im all for more functional knowledge and being able to direct your future, but that decision has to be up to the kid and preferable at a time when they have the understanding of the implications of their decision, 10th grade 15-16 sounds about appropriate.

 

[ShawnD1]

Some have a natural tendency to not see abstract ways of thinking.
Give them a practical explanation and they number crunch faster out of head then any abstract thinker can with a calculator.

Math books already focus on practical explanations of things. sine = y/r, cosine = x/r, tangent = y/x, draw all of them on a unit circle. Questions with them involve things like ferris wheels. If I start at the bottom (height = 0) and the wheel rotates at a rate of 0.5 radians per second, how high in the air will I be after 1 second if the diameter of the wheel is 20m. The problem might even have a picture next to it to make it a bit more clear what's going on.

Questions about exponents and logarithms tend to involve banking and interest rates. I invest $1000 and after 3 years of constant growth that compounds monthly this investment turns into $2000; find the yearly interest rate.

One particularly good question I remember from high school was a question that asked us to find the effective interest rate for something that doubles, has infinitely small compounding periods, and compounds and infinite number of times. In brackets it said "hint: use 999999999 as the value for infinity". Can you guess what the answer is? Euler's number, that little "e" on your calculator. Since then, I've never forgotten the meaning of e. It's used for things that have infinitely small changes that happens an infinite number of times; that's a practical explanation that makes it easy to understand.

The practical explanation of Euler's number makes it a lot easier to guess at what a formula should look like even if you have no idea what the actual formula is, and I can give an example. If I look at something like a discharging capacitor where the current depends on the voltage, and the voltage goes down as more current is drawn, then right away I know Euler's number has something to do with this. Since it's a compounding effect, I can roughly estimate what the formula should be just by copying the formula used for calculating things like interest rates. Instead of an initial investment, I start with an initial voltage. To represent the compounding, multiply by Euler's number. If I discharge it forever, it should approach zero volts, so my e^something must somehow approach 0 as time goes to infinity, which means it would be a negative exponent (1 divided by infinity equals 0). So far by ripping off parts of our bank loans formula, draining a capacitor should look something like this:
Vf = Vi(e^-t)

This is actually very close to the real formula. The real formula has an exponent of -t/RC where R represents resistance in the circuit and C is how big the capacitor is. This shows how a practical understanding of compounding interest applies to many different fields. This example really was in my grade 12 math book. It wasn't a question or anything crazy like that, but it was one of those boxes on the page that says something like "did you know?" or "check this out" written next to it.

Then you should ask yourself why [detroit sucks so much].
Because in the country where i live, those kinds of numbers do not exist. i think 850 dollar per student is more accurate and maybe still very positively numbered. Yet the students do their best and i think it is in general 80 to 90 percent that get their degree's.

Half of the problem is cultural. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people simply do not love their children. They don't care if their kids do their homework or put any effort into school, they don't care if their kids know how to read, they don't care if their kids are trouble makers or well behaved. They simply don't care.
The other problem is that teachers are not allowed to beat asses. A kid can tell the teacher to fuck off and there is nothing the teacher can do about it. You can yell at the kid, but you can't hit him or touch him in any way because touching the kid could mean losing your job. There have been cases in the news where police are called to deal with little kids younger than 10 years old. Obviously a 30 year old teacher could throw that kid out of the class with 1 arm if he or she wanted to, but they would be risking their job, so they just put up with it. The noisy kids keep being noisy. Swear at the teacher if they want. Take a shit on the floor if they want. It's impossible to teach anything when the teacher can't slap the kid, their parents won't slap the kid, and other kids won't slap the kid.

 

[Harvey]

Title: Shouldn't mandatory education be abolished?
.
.
I just don't get why it's not abolished, or at least cut down, especially the atheletic events, which have nothing to do with academics. That would save a lot of money.

The hell it would. All you'd get was an uneducated, unproductive, unsustainable population unable to compete in a 21st century world based entirely on knowledge and techology. What you suggest would turn American cities into a primative tribal jungle village.

It's interesting that you should raise the question on this Independence Day weekend. I'm afraid it suggests your education in American history, civics and critical thinking have failed. I refer you to these quotes from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.

A system of general instruction, which shall reach every description of our citizens from the richest to the poorest, as it was the earliest, so will it be the latest of all the public concerns in which I shall permit myself to take an interest." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1818.

Read more of Jefferson's views on education, here. You might learn something.

I think free-market education and no laws surrounding it would be a lot better. There's too much stuff you don't learn and too much stuff you'll never need that you're taught. And you have to take the unnecessary shit. And when there are discipline problems, as the article points out, the whole class, sometimes even the whole school, has to sit through them.

And finally, there are people who don't need to be in school anyway.

The reason for mandating a broad based education is to expose students to a wide range of material. There's no way every student can know what fields will interest them or stimulate their creative and productive energies without first being exposed to them.

No more than half of my graduating class went to college. They expel more people than they graduate in Richmond City Public Schools.

So you think the answer to a failing educational system is to destroy it, instead of building the system we need for our own preservation?

So why isn't public education abolished or at least made not mandatory? Are there some benefits I'm not seeing or what?

Didn't your mother ever warn you, if you didn't stop that you'd go blind?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Math books already focus on practical explanations of things. sine = y/r, cosine = x/r, tangent = y/x, draw all of them on a unit circle. Questions with them involve things like ferris wheels. If I start at the bottom (height = 0) and the wheel rotates at a rate of 0.5 radians per second, how high in the air will I be after 1 second if the diameter of the wheel is 20m. The problem might even have a picture next to it to make it a bit more clear what's going on.

Questions about exponents and logarithms tend to involve banking and interest rates. I invest $1000 and after 3 years of constant growth that compounds monthly this investment turns into $2000; find the yearly interest rate.

One particularly good question I remember from high school was a question that asked us to find the effective interest rate for something that doubles, has infinitely small compounding periods, and compounds and infinite number of times. In brackets it said "hint: use 999999999 as the value for infinity". Can you guess what the answer is? Euler's number, that little "e" on your calculator. Since then, I've never forgotten the meaning of e. It's used for things that have infinitely small changes that happens an infinite number of times; that's a practical explanation that makes it easy to understand.

The practical explanation of Euler's number makes it a lot easier to guess at what a formula should look like even if you have no idea what the actual formula is, and I can give an example. If I look at something like a discharging capacitor where the current depends on the voltage, and the voltage goes down as more current is drawn, then right away I know Euler's number has something to do with this. Since it's a compounding effect, I can roughly estimate what the formula should be just by copying the formula used for calculating things like interest rates. Instead of an initial investment, I start with an initial voltage. To represent the compounding, multiply by Euler's number. If I discharge it forever, it should approach zero volts, so my e^something must somehow approach 0 as time goes to infinity, which means it would be a negative exponent (1 divided by infinity equals 0). So far by ripping off parts of our bank loans formula, draining a capacitor should look something like this:
Vf = Vi(e^-t)

This is actually very close to the real formula. The real formula has an exponent of -t/RC where R represents resistance in the circuit and C is how big the capacitor is. This shows how a practical understanding of compounding interest applies to many different fields. This example really was in my grade 12 math book. It wasn't a question or anything crazy like that, but it was one of those boxes on the page that says something like "did you know?" or "check this out" written next to it.

I used the example because i have seen it with others and because it is about me as well. I guess my math teachers where not very good. Because all i ever got where formula's to learn from the head and not the practical use. It was very hard for me. Later on, i had an electronic teacher who used the formula's and explained a lot. I did not need to study for exam's, i could just draw the graphs in my mind and recalculate from that picture in my mind the actual values with the required accuracy for the answer... Before that day i could hardly pass any test. After that day, i was playing games in the school cafeteria while others studied. I still got A's. Because i understood what it was about. Up till today i am a slow learner at start. But when i start to ramp up the learning curve, it's easy and i surpass most people. And i am not unique in that respect. Not at all. The examples or comparisons most people use are just plain wrong and as such do not mean anything to me or others.

Half of the problem is cultural. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people simply do not love their children. They don't care if their kids do their homework or put any effort into school, they don't care if their kids know how to read, they don't care if their kids are trouble makers or well behaved. They simply don't care.
The other problem is that teachers are not allowed to beat asses. A kid can tell the teacher to fuck off and there is nothing the teacher can do about it. You can yell at the kid, but you can't hit him or touch him in any way because touching the kid could mean losing your job. There have been cases in the news where police are called to deal with little kids younger than 10 years old. Obviously a 30 year old teacher could throw that kid out of the class with 1 arm if he or she wanted to, but they would be risking their job, so they just put up with it. The noisy kids keep being noisy. Swear at the teacher if they want. Take a shit on the floor if they want. It's impossible to teach anything when the teacher can't slap the kid, their parents won't slap the kid, and other kids won't slap the kid.

true.

 

[Tristicus]

Maybe you should, I don't start many threads there loser.

And now we know why.

 

[nonlnear]

The problem with education isn't that it's mandatory, but that it is institutionally monolithic. There are many ways to implement mandatory education that would be much more institutionally and culturally diverse.

I don't see much point going into much more detail than that in an Anarchist 420 thread...

 

[piasabird]

All kids are just cookie cutters.

 

[ericlp]

Hmmm, interesting post. I believe that if we didn't need to fund school buss's and masses amount of real estate and buildings themselves we could SAVE BILLIONS by getting kids online and going to class at home. I honestly think kids would learn MUCH better being taught online IMO.

Tho, I doubt it would work out too well. Most parents work be it single or both of them working and they just drop the kids off and use them as a personal day care or baby sitting job.

 

[Kirby]

Schools need more beatings, less bullshit.

 

[ichy]

Would our schools benefit from being reformed? Yes.

Does a guy who calls himself "Anarchist420" have anything even vaguely valuable to contribute to this topic? No.

 

[drbrock]

Schools need more beatings, less bullshit.

exactly.


I was watching the wire and they had a program that seperated the "corners" from the "learners" to help with teaching kids who actually wanted to learn. Kids and parents have zero respect for teachers. If there is not any respect to the mentors or teachers how can kids learn from them.